Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Walt Ruloff op-ed on academic suppression at Baylor — “Does the Baylor administration believe in God?”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Walt Ruloff, the executive producer of the Ben Stein movie EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED, has an amazing op-ed in today’s Baylor Lariat, the school newspaper. WOW!

BU administration silencing science by design
Sept. 18, 2007

It may sound like a crazy question, but it needs to be asked: Does the administration at Baylor believe in God?

This is a legitimate question in light of the university’s heavy-handed actions in shutting down the research Web site of Dr. Robert Marks.

As many of you have heard, Marks, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering, has been conducting research that ultimately may challenge the foundation of Darwinian theory. In layman’s terms, Marks is using highly sophisticated mathematical and computational techniques to determine if there are limits to what natural selection can do.

At Baylor, a Christian institution, this should be pretty unremarkable stuff. I’m assuming most of the faculty, students and alumni believe in God, so wouldn’t it also be safe to assume you have no problem with a professor trying to scientifically quantify the limits of a blind, undirected cause of the origin and subsequent history of life?

It would seem this kind of research would be praised and encouraged at Baylor.

But the dirty little secret is university administrators are much more fearful of the Darwinian Machine than they are of you.

I’ve spent the last two years of my life researching the widely accepted Neo-Darwinian theory and the theory of Intelligent Design.

My team and I (including lawyer, economist, actor, game show host and social commentator Ben Stein) have interviewed dozens of the world’s top experts in biology, astronomy, physics and philosophy.

What we have uncovered in our documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, is an attack on freedom of speech and scientific inquiry that is as frightening as it is appalling. And it’s happening right here at Baylor.

Last month Dr. Ben Kelley, dean of engineering and computer science, shut down Marks’ Web site. He apparently had the blessing of President John Lilley. Why? The university put forth a bunch of phony-baloney procedural explanations that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

The truth however, can be found in an e-mail sent to Marks by Ben Kelley in which he told Marks, “I have received several concerned messages…” about his Web site. These complaints have been kept anonymous. How convenient.

Here’s what’s going on: Somebody within the scientific community let Kelley know that Marks was running a Web site that was friendly to Intelligent Design.

Such a thing is completely unacceptable in today’s university system — even at a Christian institution. Kelley was probably told to have the site shut down immediately or suffer the consequences.

What are those consequences? The ultimate penalty is to have Baylor marginalized by being designated as not a “legitimate institution of higher learning.” So designated merely for the “crime” of allowing Neo-Darwinism to be questioned, since conventional elitist wisdom holds it’s no longer a theory but an inviolable truth.

Do you think this is some kind of fanciful conspiracy theory? Google the names of Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, Dean Kenyon and Bill Dembski and see what you find. These distinguished scientists have suffered severe consequences for questioning Darwinian theory and there are hundreds, if not thousands, more.

We want to speak with President Lilley about this academic suppression, so we are going to give him one more chance. Mr. Stein is sending a crew down to knock on President Lilley’s door Thursday, September 20.

Will he talk? We hope so. But even if he doesn’t, the actions of the Baylor administration will be in our film.

Walt Ruloff

Executive producer, Premise Media

Comments
Grayman @ 23
how can you maintain that “ID is represented (with good reason) as being based on scientific rather than religious premises”?
You know how people decided that "eoliths" were not manufactured because such stones could, on reasonable grounds, be expected to form naturally whereas the lithic suite of civilisations such as say, the Mousterian, must have been designed because they could not have been formed naturally? Same sort of reasoning. Natural, random, spontaneous, processes aren't sufficient to explain the existence of certain features of living things. Therefore those features must have been designed by something capable of designing, i.e., something intelligent. It doesn't matter if the design decisions were made far in advance or whether they were made "on the fly". What matters is that chance cannot explain these features. And if chance can't explain them then all that is left is that some intelligent being made some decision about what to do to solve some problem. The intelligent agent doesn't have to be God. It only has to be intelligent. OK?Janice
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
Grayman: That quote has been so overused and so used out of context against me that I'm going to boot you for bringing it up here -- three strikes. To the rest, that quote comes from a book with a theological press in which I explore the theological implications of ID. The theological implications of a scientific theory or a theological reframing or interpretation of a scientific theory is not identical with it -- just as there's quantum mechanics and there are lots of interpretations of it (e.g., many minds or many worlds).William Dembski
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
According to Dr. Dembski, "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Given that Janice, how can you maintain that "ID is represented (with good reason) as being based on scientific rather than religious premises"? By the way, to keep EndoplasmicMessenger happy, I beleive I am indeed "engaging the argument giving a logical reason why."Grayman
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
BTW, well done, Jehu.Janice
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
lars @ 20
Rob’s question didn’t seem that unreasonable
Yes it did. Either unreasonable or ignorant. Given the fact that Rob knows enough to know that ID is represented (with good reason) as being based on scientific rather than religious premises, and given the fact that he can cobble quite a long sentence together with reasonably good grammar and punctuation, then ignorance seems unlikely and one is left with unreasonableness. This reminds me of all the arguments women have with men in which the man insists that the content of his message was innocuous while the woman is incensed because the meaning of the content is reversed by the tone of voice in which it was delivered. Of course, tone of voice cannot come across in a post to a blog. Which is why one has to rely on other clues. And I note that many hours have passed, yet so far Rob has neither proferred an apology for expressing himself in a manner that could lead to misunderstandings regarding his meaning nor rephrased his question. So my guess is that the call was a good one.Janice
September 20, 2007
September
09
Sep
20
20
2007
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
"Rob, Your question betrays an insensitivity to the sensibilities of our group. One more strike and you’re out. –WmAD" I initially thought that was a tongue-in-cheek parody of sinister Darwinian intolerance of dissenting views. Now I'm not so sure it was meant to be humorous. Rob's question didn't seem that unreasonable.lars
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
Tip: Until they fix the website, and the ads/links are hidding text, you can highlight and copy text (CTL+C), then paste it (CTL+V) to Windows Notepad (its in program/accessories) and it all pastes fine, including the hidden text. A little tedious, but it lets you look at the missing text.russ
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
EndoplasmicMessenger, Thanks so much for the clarification. Yes, my question was sincere and I greatly appreciate the response. I try to be a "can't we all just get along" person but it looks like in the case of ID that doesn't work. I have read several ID books so I am not a newbie. Just a blogging newbie! But I do know there are several people who are more interested now do to the Mark's problems. Again, thanks for taking the time to answer my question. A little off the subject but still related to academics does anyone know where things stand with G. Gonzales?TexasChem
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
TexasChem, Assuming that your question is sincere, what Rob did wrong is he insinuated that ID is religion in disguise. Rob apparently very well knows the "often-repeated claim that ID is not a religious belief, is based on science instead of religion, and does not start from religious premises." Yet, he apparently questions these claims as being disingenuous without engaging the argument or giving a logical reason why. (See Jehu's answer for a response to this question.) This is a subtle form of ad hominem attack, which is why WmAD stepped in. Very few and very far between are those ID-critics whose desire to know objective truth overcomes their strong internal subjective bias against it. Their deep-seated world view that all is randomness is just too strong to allow them to be objective on the matter. Their primary mode of communication is sarcasm. Years of experience on many internet newsgroups, forums and blogs shows this to be the case. If you have been following the news about the movie Expelled, you know the stakes are getting higher every day. This behavior of ID-critics is about to be extremely well documented. It was courteous of WmAD to give Rob a warning. If Rob keeps up his gaming, and continues with snide remarks rather than logically and neutrally engaging the argument for ID, then his cards are exposed and he will be rightly booted. This is not a tutorial site on ID. However, if you are an ID newbie and want more information, there are plenty of good books on the subject, some of which are listed on the sidebar of this page.EndoplasmicMessenger
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
"Rob, Your question betrays an insensitivity to the sensibilities of our group. One more strike and you’re out. –WmAD" Have you been getting anonymous email complaints, or is that appeal only wrong when issued by your enemies? -FJBfbeckwith
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
geoff I was thinking this was a blessing in disguise too. You can't buy publicity like this. By their actions Baylor has now made the Bioinformatics Lab the talk of the town, so to speak. The smart move for Lilley would be to quickly admit his decision was a mistake made in haste under pressure from unnamed sources and then reinstate the Bioinformatics Lab. If he does the dumb thing this is just going to explode into a huge embarrassing brouhaha that will survive longer than he does. I'm betting he does the dumb thing but maybe he'll surprise me.DaveScot
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Heh heh, I love it.mike1962
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
WmAD: I'm a little confused. "Rob, Your question betrays an insensitivity to the sensibilities of our group." What exactly did he do wrong? I'm new at this (I think quite a few people are since the Mark's thing started). Could you please explain to me what is/isn't allowed as far as posts. I thought Rob had a ligitimate question and is porbably just new at this too. I don't think he was trying to be insensitive. Thanks!TexasChem
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
A gift on a platter for the film makers.geoffrobinson
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
Rob, Your question betrays an insensitivity to the sensibilities of our group. One more strike and you're out. --WmADWilliam Dembski
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Rob
Given the often-repeated claim that ID is not a religious belief, is based on science instead of religion, and does not start from religious premises, why would Walt Ruloff - or anyone - expect ID to receive more support from a Christian institution than from anywhere else?
Before I answer your question, I need to establish something. Are you capable of comprehending the concept that a theory being consistent with a philosophical, religious, or metaphysical belief is distinct from being the belief itself or being founded on that beleif? For example, try wrapping your head around this statement, "ID is consistent with religion but is not itself a religion nor is it founded on religion. ID is also consistent with non-religious beliefs like panspermia." Got that? Bokay. Now to answer your question, one would expect a Christian institution to support scientific theories that are consistent with its world view even if those theories are not the same thing as Christianity. Here is a question for you Rob. In what way was Prof. Marks project on Evolutionary Infomatics at Baylor not scientific?Jehu
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
I don't understand this: "At Baylor, a Christian institution, [ID] should be pretty unremarkable stuff. ... [Friendliness to Intelligent Design] is completely unacceptable in today’s university system — even at a Christian institution." Given the often-repeated claim that ID is not a religious belief, is based on science instead of religion, and does not start from religious premises, why would Walt Ruloff - or anyone - expect ID to receive more support from a Christian institution than from anywhere else?Rob
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
I think that this is going to be a great film, and it will be good finally for being able to see both sides of this issue put before the public. It just does not make very much sense to me that Baylor would even do this.Glarson24
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
This is great. What is going on at Baylor is scandalous. Lilley needs to learn that the Baptist population that supplies Baylor with its students and its reason for existance are not interested in kowtowing to the Darwinist machine. The Baptists will also not be happy that Lilley is selling out truth in exchange for a little more academic prestige amongst the elite intellectual class.Jehu
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
I once sat in an ecumenical service of various local churches for Thanksgiving and listened to the minister from the local Congregational Church announce that he actually believed in God. I nearly fell off the pew. A minister admitting that he believed in God like it was unusual. I think the phenomena is wider spread than we suspect and that a lot of so called religious people go through the motions and don't have traditional religious beliefs. So it wouldn't surprise me at all that officials at religious universities really do not believe in God or the tenets of Christianity. My guess is that their alumni and the parents of the children who attend have stronger religious beliefs. So one way to get at them is through the alumni and contributions to the university.jerry
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
"I’m assuming most of the faculty, students and alumni believe in God, so wouldn’t it also be safe to assume you have no problem with a professor trying to scientifically quantify the limits of a blind, undirected cause of the origin and subsequent history of life?" According to the scientific community, Its ok to believe in God, as long as this God is kept in the confines of your personal belief. Do not let God enter the workplace. God cannot have acted in the history of humanity. There is no fingerprint for God. BU is simply being consistent with the way modern Christianity has been acting for the past 50-100 years. Believe in God, fine, but don't let that belief lead to its logical conclusion,such as intelligently designed animals and plants, history that is consistent with the bible, etc.DrDan
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
“… it was buggy from the start.” Buggy? Well, more bugs (the software equivalent of biological random mutations) more unguided evolutionary improvements at UD!niwrad
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
We're trying to take care of the layout problems. This was the very first theme we used at UD, and it was buggy from the start. Please be patient.William Dembski
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
This is one big mess. BTW: The current layout causes some of the words to be blocked by the sidebar. It is quite frustrating.bork
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
It appears like Dover wasn't the last word after all, eh Bill? :)DaveScot
September 19, 2007
September
09
Sep
19
19
2007
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply